Best Desktop Keyboards - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5933853/five-best-desktop-keyboards

<comment><USER2> I personally can't stand Apple's keyboards. They look very nice, obviously, but I find them cramped for typing. I have a keycapless Das that is a dream and I've been considering a Kinesis for a long time.

If you don't know how to touch type, I _highly_ recommend the Das Model S Ultimate Silent. Two weeks with that cleared it all up, but make sure you have a backup for typing passwords.

<comment><USER3> I thought I'd hate the Apple keyboard (on my MacBook Pro) but I ended up really liking it a lot. Even more than my nice mechanical keyboard. It's very quiet and I can type much faster than I can with the mechanical keyboard.

<comment><USER4> As much as I love my Das Keyboard, I must admit I don't mind the Apple keyboards at all for most tasks. If I had to do anything like transcription, then yes, but for most tasks like programming or surfing, I'm surprised how seamlessly I can switch from a mechanical keyboard to an Apple keyboard and back again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I used to be a Model M fanatic for about a decade.

Then Apple released the chicklet keyboards and had me hooked after a week.

What I don't understand is how the Logitech's belong in that list. The G83 used to be bearable but all others that I've tried (including the fancy ones with the display) were a wobbly mess.

<comment><USER6> Also a huge IBM Model M fan here. That's what I grew up using. After a brief spell of using cheap rubber dome keyboards that were becoming the blight on humanity they still are, I got a Unicomp Linux model with the Caps Lock and Ctrl keys swapped. It's buckling spring bliss as far as I'm concerned, with a USB. I'll never go back to non-mechanical after using a RFK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Best keyboards? Four out of five of the reccomended keyboards are membrane and scissor switches, which are designed for cost and space savings, not ergonomics.

If you type more than a few hours per day, check out a mechanical or hybrid (Topre) keyboard. Your wrists will thank you.

geekhack.org is a good resource.

<comment><USER8> Do they make non-clacky mechanical keyboards? I absolutely cannot stand the clacky old IBM keyboards from my childhood.

I currently use a "Logitech Illuminated Ultrathin Keyboard" and love it. But maybe I'm a freak, my wrists/hands feel a lot better using thin, laptop style keys rather than big clunky mechanicals.

<comment><USER9> Topre isn't nearly as clacky by default, but it also comes in a silent model. I haven't tried it myself, so can't tell how silent it actually gets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nothing beats the old IBM Model M with its buckling spring mechanism!

I wish there was a modern alternative at a reasonable price and with a USB connection (especially in Europe where it seems harder to find niche keyboard products for some reason, or perhaps I just didn't discover it yet)

<comment><USER11> Unicomps are pretty much clones of the Model M. They're available for 80 USD. I'm not sure how much shipping to Europe is, unfortunately.

<http://pckeyboard.com/page/category/UKBD>

<comment><USER6> I have a Unicomp "Linux" model. This was a model they used to sell stock with the Caps Lock and Ctrl keys swapped. It's wonderful for programming. I think now they will customise the keyboard for a small additional fee if you like that setup, or you can DIY.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have settled on the Leopold ten keyless. I picked mine up from elitekeyboards.com.

I really like how the Leopold types and it's not frustratingly loud like many mechanical keyboards.

<comment><USER13> The noise level of mechanical keyboards is a function of the keyswitches being used. From your comment I'm assuming you got the black or brown switches?

<comment><USER14> I have a Corsair K90 with cherry red switches, which are still quite noisy - the noise comes from the keys bottoming out, rather than the switch itself.

You can get little rubber rings to dampen them though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Hacking_Keyboard>

That list is a joke btw.

<comment><USER16> I would have loved to include the Happy Hacking Keyboard on the list. It's one of my faves - but that said, the list is based on nominations and votes. It may be a joke, but it's a joke based on hundreds of nominations from readers, so there's that.

<comment><USER15> A well-researched article/list would have produced a valuable resource. This is true for all high-end electronics. Apple makes beautiful garbage when it comes to keyboards (and mice). They make this fundamental mistake of applying to human interfaces an aesthetic perfect only for storage and other static equipment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's depressing that only one in five of these keyboards is ergonomic. If you're a developer today and you are planning on typing on a keyboard for at least the next ten years, picking any other keyboard than an ergonomic one is a guaranteed path toward painful and permanent pains in your wrists and forearms.

Switch to an ergonomic keyboard today, you'll be glad you did.

<comment><USER14> I've been typing on keyboards for the past 20 years, no pains at all. I credit it to Dvorak, myself.

<comment><USER17> Some people seem to be immune to it, you might be one of the lucky few.

Make no mistake, though: Dvorak is an aggravating factor in carpal tunnel syndrome. The faster you type by moving your fingers only and not your hands, the more likely you are to start feeling the onset of CTS.

Ironically, the best way to make sure you won't suffer from CTS is by typing with just two fingers.

<comment><USER14> All the anecdotes I've read on Dvorak switchers indicate relief from CTS compared with Qwerty. For the same speed of typing, Dvorak users move their fingers less than Qwerty users.

It would be nice to have some hard data.

<comment><USER18> learning a new layout makes you pay close attention to the movements. I predict that switching from dvorak to querty will show the effect, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My ideal keyboard would be a DasKeyboard Model S with the layout of Microsoft's Natural Ergonomic Desktop keyboard. I am befuddled as to why neither DasKeyboard or EliteKeyboards make an ergonomic model.

I know the Model M came in a split model, but they are extremely expensive (when they can be found).

<comment><USER19> The Kinesis Advantage uses the same Cherry keyswitches as a Das Keyboard, and has a split ergo layout:

<http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/advantage.htm>

<comment><USER4> I've been tempted before but the layout looks a bit extreme. Does it take a while to get used to or is it a pretty easy switch?

<comment><USER20> I tried a Kinesis like that a few years ago and couldn't stand it.

If Microsoft made a Natural keyboard with slightly clacky keys (or even the original Natural keyboard again) I'd buy a couple dozen of them and stay with them for the rest of my life. Unfortunately, the keyboard folks at MS have been doing a poorer and poorer job over the last few years; the most recent ones (from the 4000 up) are squishy-keyed disasters that I can't type on reliably. [Don't get me started on F-lock. What were they /thinking/?]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Can someone explain the difference between membrane, scissor and mechanical keyboards? I have no idea what my preference would be. Let alone what kind of keyboard I'm currently using (which is the best I one ever owned).

I'm also surprised why no-one seems to take travel into account. I find that I type more relaxed (and faster) on keyboards with flat keys that don't travel much.

</comment><comment><USER22> Not to sound negative but I can't wait till I have enough karma points to down vote. This list of "Best Desktop Keyboards" is quite lacking.

</comment><comment><USER23> Filco Majestouch 2 Tenkeyless with MX Brown switches for me.

Besides the advantages of the mechanical switches (the Browns are also not that loud as others) I really dig the compact size. The only time I ever used the numpad was when I had to work on spreadsheets. Thankfully I was able to graduate from that.

</comment><comment><USER24> I used to use an Apple chichlet keyboard at my computer (even though it's not a mac) because I loved typing on it.

Then I decided to buy a Daskeyboard (Model S Professional) and it's been absolutely _amazing_.

<comment><USER25> Do they make those without the numpads? It's silly but after all these years typing on a laptop I've come to loathe the distance my hand has to travel to reach the mouse - especially on my MS Natural 4k.

<comment><USER26> What you want is a "Tenkeyless" model. You can obtain boards with the same Cherry MX Blues (or Browns in the "Silent" version) that are "tenkeyless" style from brands whose quality is about on par with Das.

They can be found at several places, but the two I know of are Elite Keyboards (Leopold): [http://www.elitekeyboards.com/products.php?sub=leopold,tenke...](http://www.elitekeyboards.com/products.php?sub=leopold,tenkeyless)

and Keyboard co UK on Amazon.com (Mainly Filco)

I've used a tenkeyless Filco (blue) and tenkeyless Leopold Brown and I love 'em both. I don't really miss the numpad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A lot of really weird suggestions. This needs a lot more mechanical keyboards in it. I don't even know if you would ever want a Logitech keyboard.

Check out /r/keyboards for some more interesting suggestions.

<comment><USER16> I agree - I would have loved more mechs on the list. They just don't seem to have caught on with the general public just yet though. We had a half-dozen in the nominations list, but all told they got fewer votes collected than some of the others that made the top five.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've got a Logitech K800 and an IBM Model M. I prefer the IBM Model M, but the K800 is the only thin, wireless, backlit keyboard that I've found that's still pleasant to type on after getting used to an IBM.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'd love to find an analogue for the _feel_ of a mechanical keyboard in a laptop keyboard. Something with at least 3mm travel and the actuation point at 2mm.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm thinking about getting one of these: <https://secure.trulyergonomic.com/>

Has anyone tried it?

</comment><comment><USER31> I would really like to get that Das Keyboard Ultimate edition, any one have any comments on either that model or their keyboards in general?

</comment><comment><USER32> Microsoft Sidewinder X6 gets my vote.

Removable numpad, banks of accelerator keys and volume spinners top off excellent key action.

</comment><comment><USER33> somehow all the better ergonomic ones are missing: typematrix (i own one of those), kinesis, etc.

that's kind of lame for an article titled "best desktop keyboards"

<comment><USER16> If you look closely, you'll notice they're the best as voted on by our community. It looks like their tastes and yours differ somewhat.

<comment><USER33> and? if you ask people who never bought a keyboard what keyboard is best the methodology might not be the best...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> What a lame article... I don't know why I expected more from Lifehacker.

Anyone who does a lot of typing at work is not going to like Apple keyboards. Those things ruin your fingers because the keys have no give. It is kind of similar to what running on concrete will do to your knees.

<comment><USER35> What? You know, they work even without bangint on keys like crazy. Just lightly tapping them.

<comment><USER34> Why would I want to alter my entire typing style for no reason other than to use YET-ANOTHER-APPLE-PRODUCT(TM) ? I have a Macbook, and the keyboard is fine for most situations. But whenever I try to do a lot of writing or programming on it, my fingers end up hurting really badly.</comment></comment></comment>


FTC Probing Facebook for Use of Personal Data, Source Says - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/ftc-said-to-be-probing-facebook-for-use-of-personal-data <comment><USER4> This presents an interesting opportunity for the FTC.

The amount of data being amassed by Facebook, Google and others has become exorbitant, and apparently has already been abused (some might even say weaponized) in a major election.

If Facebook indeed violated the 2011 consent decree, then the FTC can fine them up to "thousands of dollars a day per violation [per user]". This presents the FTC with the opportunity to send a message to these data hoarders: protect the data you collect, _or else_.

Fine them to the point where they have to start asking themselves whether it's even _worth it_ to collect and store certain data, and with whom to share it.

It shouldn't be the government's job to ensure that the data gets protected, this should be in Facebook's own self interest.

<comment><USER5> > and apparently has already been abused (some might even say weaponized) in a > major election.

You mean major election_s_, right? I do seem to remember the Democrats crowing about how Obama's team had used social media to their advantage and Republicans were hopelessly outmatched in this arena.

[http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the- obama-...](http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama- campaign-connected-with-young-voters/)

Fun tidbits:

> But the Obama team had a solution in place: a Facebook application that will > transform the way campaigns are conducted in the future. For supporters, the > app appeared to be just another way to digitally connect to the campaign. > But to the Windy City number crunchers, it was a game changer. "I think this > will wind up being the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for > this campaign," says Teddy Goff, the Obama campaign's digital director.

> That's because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the > app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In > an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly > 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded > friend lists.

Whoa, that sounds exactly like the "breach" we're talking about here!

And a former Obama staffer confirms this: [https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/20/ex-obama-staffer- cl...](https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/20/ex-obama-staffer-claims- facebook-allowed-campaign-to-mine-user-data-because-they-were-on-our-side) (yeah yeah "I don't trust your source", but it's just screenshots straight from the horse's mouth).

Money quotes:

> Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but > they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.

> They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very > candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn't have allowed someone > else to do because they were on our side.

<comment><USER6> The major differences:

1\. The Democrats didn't harvest the data under false pretenses; the data came from people who signed up for a political app.

2\. The Democratic campaign data wasn't illegally transferred from one company to another.

But I agree that the Obama campaign's actions should have been a flag and we should have worried harder about it, even if they weren't as bad as what Cambridge Analytica did.

<comment><USER7> > illegally transferred

I'd question illegality. In violation of agreements, perhaps. If there were any, and there wasn't a wink, wink type of understanding on what would be done.

<comment><USER8> It's like SuperPAC coordination. Every election cycle there are countless obvious violations of SuperPAC coordination at all levels and parties but these are hardly ever investigated much less prosecuted.

<comment><USER6> Exactly.

I sort of don't care why the media firestorm is so bad, even if it's unfair, because it means we might see some action which will limit bad actors on all sides of the political spectrum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To any engineers reading this who are now working at Facebook, you have a choice to make:

Stay in the organization and work to turn it away form casual misuse of personal information. Prevent an Orwellian future of machine-learning assisted, personally targeted messaging preying upon our fears and insecurities. Stand up and speak out against the performance of unethical psychological experiments on unwitting participants.

-OR-

Leave now.

This is one of the important moral issues of our time. To stay on the sidelines is unacceptable.

<comment><USER10> Oh stop with this ridiculous hyberbole. Just stop.

>This is one of the important moral issues of our time.

No, it's not. Even if it was (and it's not) I'm not even sure if it would crack the top 100. For example, did you know there are people without access to clean water? There are civil wars? State run gulags? Did you know man-made global climate change is a thing? How about that we're going through an unprecedented ecological collapse? All non-issues. The big moral problem of our time is a social media company that wants to sell you shit.

<comment><USER11> Doesn't this entire issue corroborate the idea that this ISN'T just about a social media company trying to sell us shit?

Two of the issues you mentioned, state run gulags and anthropogenic climate change, are issues really only solvable at the federal level. Facebook's and Cambridge Analytica's ability to influence an election can have a profound effect on those kinds of issues. I mean, we now have a climate change denier in the White House who is dismantling the EPA. If propaganda spreading through Facebook created that, could that not also be partly responsible for our inability to do something about climate change?

That's just one example, but I think you're being just as hyperbolic by saying this wouldn't crack the top 100.

<comment><USER10> >Doesn't this entire issue corroborate the idea that this ISN'T just about a social media company trying to sell us shit

No. OP called out Facebook, not Cambridge Analytica. OP attempted to shame Facebook employees not Cambridge Analytica employees. Facebook is here to sell targeted ads.

>but I think you're being just as hyperbolic by saying this wouldn't crack the top 100.

I stand by it. This smells like a big nothing burger. I'm not even sure what the news here is. Candy Crush probably has info on hundreds of millions of Facebook users. No outrage there.

It isn't even novel that Facebook was used for political targetting, as the Obama, Romney, and more broadly DNC and RNC did the exact same thing. I just assumed this was all part of that vauted digital strategy all the news outlet were blaring about everytime one party won an election. It may be a coincidence that this is a problem because Trump used this method for voter outreach. Maybe.

Maybe it's the potential Russian meddling that's the new news here? But then it's not really what the news outlets are focusing on. It's all about how Cambridge Analytica created 'psychological profiles' on voters...which sounds more like a query that was ran against the dataset.

<comment><USER12> It's the obvious malicious intent that we see time and time again with Facebook, the companies they own, and like-minded companies like Google and Amazon. People are fed up with the BS. It's atrocious that no tech people speak out or get the airtime to inform people what's going on without their knowledge (and most of the time, consent). Facebook is a scourge to humanity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Let us please remember that these incidents are not specific to Facebook, rather they are systemic to the big five.

A couple of years or more I was posting on Facebook regarding Cambridge Analytica's practices and was considered a tin foil hat and crazy.

No the reason I was able to shed some light at the time was I knew exactly how we could utilize the Facebook API back then to elicit the kind of data we are talking about, and completely legally. Nobody needed to circumvent FB API policies, it was yours for the taking.

I didn't do it although I did put together multiple PoC's from 2011 to 2014 to see what was possible and it was bad.

Another thing we should remember is that Cambridge Analytica is just one small tip of a fractal iceberg whose body is Facebook and the big five, your internet connection and certainly your smartphone themselves.

Google, Apple and Amazon are no less culpable in this regard.

The question now becomes which side of history we want to be on.

Another question is we assume we want to take our privacy back and how we do that with consent and assurance.

I don't have a Facebook account anymore but I'm still tracked as we all are. My mother doesn't like me not being there but a small price to pay. I can contact her elsewhere and do.

Surely enough is enough?

I think it is time to look for broad scale technologies that are better both in the real world and in our private world.

<comment><USER14> Out of interest, is there any evidence that Apple are collating data and making it available to 3rd parties in the same way as Facebook? They like to position themselves as more caring of the user's privacy than the rest, but I'd definitely like to know more about any problems.

<comment><USER15> Unlike Google and Facebook, Apple does not make money by selling user profiles for marketers to target.

<comment><USER16> Only because iAd ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAd)) was a horrific failure.

In early 2011, the minimum buy price on the platform was $500K. By midyear, $300K. By early 2012, $100K. Early 2013? $50 (no K missing, just fifty bucks).

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h I believe you that it was a failure, but that doesn't follow from the minimum price dropping. Perhaps as they gained confidence in the system, they allowed smaller buys with smaller prices (but still just as profitable).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's laughable that any Facebook user assumes any degree of privacy.

What's far more concerning, and what this probe doesn't appear to address, is what Facebook does with the information of non-users.

[https://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/all-the-ways-facebook- tracks-...](https://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/all-the-ways-facebook-tracks-you- that-you-might-not-kno-1795604150)

[https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/06/02/facebook- ads-f...](https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/06/02/facebook-ads-for-non- users)

<comment><USER18> You seriously think grandma and Joe the plumber are aware of Facebook's constant data collection?

Let's have empathy for people outside the tech bubble and realize that it's our duty as technical people to educate people around us about these issues.

<comment><USER19> You don't talk to many casuals then. They are fully aware that all of their data is being recorded and used against them. They've been aware since the massive NSA scandal.

<comment><USER18> What about the like button on web sites and the FB pixel that is invisible to the user? Again, you seriously think Joe average is aware of that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Prediction: Facebook's goal for this investigation will be to make sure the public doesn't learn that Cambridge Analytica was only one of countless political actors that "somehow gained access" the pool of user information.

I was in meetings with FB almost 10 years ago, as the OpenGraph API was being implemented, where they were openly selling, to anyone willing to pay, exactly what CA supposedly "hacked their way into".

<comment><USER21> The Obama campaign was very proud of doing something at least as bad, but I don't think we'll see that on the news, which offers a glimpse into what the motives are here.

<comment><USER22> The Obama campaign was involved in laughably simple PR and door to door efforts compared to the complexity and microtargeting of this one.

<comment><USER23> The Obama campaign employed Big Data to target which doors to knock on and which issues to bring up at each one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> To put the FB selloff into a market perspective: -Equifax is only off 13% from its peak after its unprecedented leak of nearly every American and many Canadians' credit info, leaving the population vulnerable to identity theft. The population mostly never agreed to give Equifax this information, but Equifax collects it anyways.

FB is off 8.5% now as a client business failed to adhere to FB users' privacy for data that the users were willingly giving out to FB and the client (but not the third party). Not likely much more downside to the stock on this news imo.

<comment><USER25> Perhaps the market's reaction reflects the widespread belief that this publicity may drive users away from Facebook, whereas Consumers can't really opt out of Equifax's collection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Biggest concern for Facebook has got to be them investigating the other sharing of data beyond Cambridge Analytica. I seriously doubt they turned the other way for conservative but not liberal think tanks / firms.

<comment><USER27> They also have datasets of 50M user profiles floating around out there filled with Facebook-like data. There still hasn't been a public leak of that kind of data that I can think of. I think a concern for Facebook is also what happens if/when 50M Americans' names, gender, hometown, birthday, and names of 500 closest friends become public for all to see. That's not really data that you can change or put back into a bottle.

<comment><USER28> The name and address data isn't anything unique. There's probably multiple companies with better address data than Facebook has. And the national party organizations have pretty much complete voter rolls with addresses.

The unique data is the friend graph and the likes, which they can use to (quite effectively) predict political attitudes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> In the long term we need HIPAA style regulation for all kinds of personal data: friend graphs, behavioral histories, private messages, and especially things like location data or voice assistant audio samples.

Leak such data without explicit customer consent? That will be $10,000 per incident. So if you leak 100 data points of someone's location history that will be a $1,000,000 fine.

Explicit consent must be per-incident as in "YES I give my consent to send this information to <recipient> for purpose of <...>."

That would incentivize strong security practices and even more importantly dis-incentivize data hoarding beyond what is needed to provide a service. Hoarded personal data would be a gigantic risk and liability.

<comment><USER30> It would just pass the buck. What everyone on HN is clamoring for will result in basically more bureaucracy and longer EULAs with no actual change in business practice.

Businesses don't take it seriously because people don't actually care. Some do. The vast majority don't. They might say so in a survey, but at the end of the day, Facebook (and companies like it) will continue to survive doing what they always have been and people will continue using those services.

That's the root of the issue, though. People really don't care as much as posters on HN think they do. If we could acknowledge that, I think we could come up with better solutions.

<comment><USER31> The GDPR should take care of that to a large degree.

Consent must be asked for in a clear understandable fashion.

Burrying some legalese crap at page 29 of your 12'000 word TOS doesn't cut it.

Could be that Facebook tries to push the envelope yet again. They may come to regret it.

<comment><USER30> We'll see.

If I had to bet, it will not be the case that we'll see some big exile of users as a result of having to click through an additional "Agree and Continue" dialogue to get to what they were going to do anyway. The GDPR will do a lot more to appear to be doing things right than actually benefiting users.

<comment><USER32> It depends. Courts could rule that click through licences don't constitute "informed consent", because let's be honest, people aren't informed about what they're signing.

<comment><USER30> Respectfully if users are honestly considered too dumb to read targeted dialog boxes, the regulation required to "fix" that "problem" is going to be downright draconian.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I expect that FB will be receiving a few milliong letters like this [1] in a couple of months, when GDPR will be kicking in. And following that, a few million requests (smaller number) for the "right to be forgotten" [2].

#1 was on the front page of HN a couple of days ago.

[1]: [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject- acce...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-access- request-under-gdpr-karbaliotis/)

[2]: [https://gdpr-info.com/the-right-to-be-forgotten/](https://gdpr- info.com/the-right-to-be-forgotten/)

<comment><USER34> They already had an obligation to respond to such inquires under the older EU Data Protection Directive. But they generally ignored the requests or only gave incomplete data (e.g., you'd get your facebook posts, etc., but no tracking data they had on you).

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The focus of this scandal is curious. Does anyone seriously expect privacy for information that they willingly share with hundreds of people (their facebook friends)?

If you think this kind of information floating around is damaging to society, then you're making an argument against the very idea of FB. Fine; it's at least worth thinking about how social media is changing our society. But to really be upset that this data is out there and being used, after willingly sharing it with many people, is kind of ridiculous. What did you expect? You should assume that anything you do on FB, short of private messages, is part of the public record.

Everyone is targeting you based on information you put out in the world. Every major political campaign in the US works with a database of voters that includes party affiliation, past turnout, name, age, etc. They can also fold in the same data that advertisers use. Being a good citizen of a republic—and a savvy consumer—in the modern world means thinking critically about who is trying to persuade you and what their agenda is. The government cannot protect you from persuasion.

<comment><USER36> You made your point very clear. Thanks. I concur.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I love how now this issue is alright to talk about on hacker news. For some reason when it was happening and all of the alarms were going off, it was banned content on hacker news. Technology is inherently political with political ramifications. -_-

</comment><comment><USER38> Facebook is just one target right now. Working in ad tech, you know how many data brokers are available and how much information your phone and apps, regardless of OS, leaks real time personal data. The issue is with the ad tech industry as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER39> Wait a minute.....

Wasn't the FTC already "monitoring" Facebook?

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ftc-to-monitor-facebook- for-20-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ftc-to-monitor-facebook-for-20-years- but-no-fine/)

Oh, that's right. That whole monitoring for 20 years thing, that they're also applying to Google and a few other companies is a _complete joke_. If anything, it has become almost a badge of honor/certification thing - <USER2> "Look, the FTC is monitoring us for 20 years, so that obviously means we can't possibly abuse your data or do anything nefarious with it!"

</comment><comment><USER40> "...50 million users..."

Anyone know how this number was added up? Any reason not to believe it wasn't 500 million or 5 million?

<comment><USER39> The Guardian's original article on this says that number was shown in documents from 2015 [1]. However, the whistleblower said that by now it should be over 230 million [2].

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge- analy...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica- facebook-influence-us-election)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war- whistl...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war- whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Facebook is a net negative force in our society. Particularly for the startup ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER42> Disclaimer: I'm anti-democracy in it's _current form_ so before you down vote me think through my point carefully.

What I don't get about this whole issue, is that we are basically admitting that the average person who uses these services has poor critical thinking skills and the American democratic process is easily gamed as such. I feel we are trying to fix the wrong thing. Sure, regulate FB and any other company that happens to collect lots of user data I don't have a problem with that. My fundamental issue is that FB is mostly an opt-in service. As far as I can see, the shadow profiles they create on a user who isn't signed up for their services doesn't really contain enough data to be of material impact for the type of things that a company like CA is doing (it's mostly to help in it's ad network to sell you more stuff rather and is rather well anonomyzed).

The only argument against the fact that FB is an opt-in service is that it has a near monopoly on social media and seems to either buy or kill any serious threat. More important than trying to regulate FB's data collection and privacy would be ensuring that our antitrust and monopoly laws are being enforced to remove FB's near monopoly.

Further, I'm not here to defend Facebook, but I feel it's being used as a scapegoat for an easily gamed democratic process where rather than biting the bullet and fixing that, we are saying it's FB and CA are the real evil here. In fact they are not. They are for-profit businesses who are operating within the current regulatory framework they've been provided. It seems obvious to me what really needs to be fixed is a broken electoral process.

<comment><USER43> I think you make a great point here: we absolutely need a population that thinks more critically before they act, whether it's voting or signing up for a service or purchasing a product.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how realistic that is. I think people just don't want to have to critically think _all the time_ , and it's unrealistic to expect every member of the population to exert constant vigilance against ill will. There are simply too many forces trying to manipulate us and get our attention to expect every person to never mess up ever.

This is where the government steps in. Expect companies to be reasonably transparent about their intentions (signing up for Facebook definitely did not give me adequate warning a decade ago about their intentions with my data, and subsequent changes in their plans were not adequately expressed to me as a user), and reasonably cautious in their expansion (I signed up for Facebook at the age of 12, which is technically against Facebook's TOS. They didn't put enough effort into policing those TOS to kick me off the site at the age of 12, and I certainly wasn't mature enough to understand the breadth of Facebook's TOS. Unfortunately I don't think many non-lawyers are equipped to understand the true meaning of signing up for Facebook, which... is it's own problem).

Basically we need these corporations to be better citizens than then currently are, which shouldn't be terribly hard since they're currently downright psychopathic citizens, exploiting the law and their large workforces to manipulate other citizens at every turn. In a better world than our own, corporations would actually be _model_ citizens, but that's probably not realistic in the capitalist system. And we also need the government to do its job better, by punishing corporations that act selfishly so that others actually have an incentive to behave well.

<comment><USER44> How do you distinguish a population that "thinks more critically before they act" and one that lives in constant fear of social backlash? They're two sides of the same coin!

An intellectually free society is one in which one doesn't have to think critically about the potential social and economic ramifications of every remark. It's a society in which people can pitch inchoate ideas, receive feedback, and iterate on worldviews.

That we're increasingly living in an intellectually unfree society isn't the fault of "corporations" and their citizenship. Instead, it's the result of a push toward controlling people in the name of 'fixing' society and preventing 'harm'. History tells us that down this road lies only death and blood.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Why don't they just offer the option to turn off ads? If there's no ads to show to you because you're paying to opt out, there should be no reason to harvest your personal info. They have 2 billion active users and make around $50 billion a year. So they'd need to charge $2 per user per month to opt out of ads (and could probably charge more). The fact that this isn't even an option just reeks of their holier than thou corporate attitude.

<comment><USER46> The type of person to pay to turn off ads is generally the type of person that advertisers want to influence.

<comment><USER47> I don't know about that.. those are probably the people who it's way harder to influence, or even not possible. It's not worth their time. Focus on the.. I don't know.. 70%? who doesn't care if ads are flying across their screen, it's easy to influence them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I don't know where else to say this so i'll say it here as it's relavant.

Is there not a way to have a browser extension that would scramble the meta data that is read by websits lik Facebook and Google? so we would still be feeding data to their brain but it would be worthless and random gibbrish. Does that make any snse?

<comment><USER49> [https://adnauseam.io/](https://adnauseam.io/)

[https://noiszy.com/](https://noiszy.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm somewhat surprised by the amount of criticism levied at Facebook here. Consider the following:

1) Both Android and iOS allow apps to access your contacts, which in aggregate is more or less the same kind of social graph that Facebook has. If you happen to be in someone else's contacts, you don't get a say here either. I suppose Facebook's data is richer in some ways, but not in other ways.

2) When Twitter removed API access for 3rd parties, there was an uproar in the developer community about how evil this is and so on. There's a trade-off here - openness at the platform level necessarily means less privacy for users.

3) A lot of the criticism Facebook has received in the past (both here and elsewhere) had to do with not allowing 3rd party developers to do more and hoarding user data, which is not theirs, for monetization. Here Facebook was explicitly giving the app owner and the user the power to decide - the app owner could ask and the user could either accept or decline. You could argue that this isn't adequate protection, but consider how this works for other platforms such as Windows, Mac OS, iOS and Android. Apps can access more or less everything and permission dialogs, even where they do exist, aren't taken seriously by the user.

4) Most publishers that are currently publishing these articles criticizing Facebook are also selling everything they know about you to marketers, often more explicitly for the purposes of targeting. The "scandal" here is that a third-party app gathered personal information that wasn't supposed to be used for targeting and the data ended up being used for targeted political ads. Most publishers have no problem explicitly selling whatever data they can get on you to these centralized data brokers who will sell that data to anyone.

5) All this talk about privacy and data aside, the motivation seems to be that the wrong guy won the presidential election - I don't see anyone whose personal data was supposedly used in this manner being upset nor anyone owning up to the fact that they were falsely manipulated into voting for Trump or not voting. It seems to be mainly Clinton supporters being upset that other people were manipulated into voting for the wrong guy, amplified by the same concern about privacy and social graph data ownership issue we've always had.

6) If we accept that it's the presidential election result that most people are upset about here, the media is even more culpable, both from creating this false narrative that it was not a close election and prematurely taking the moral high ground against the potential Clinton administration by focusing on the irrelevant stuff (emails, etc). And that's just the "mainstream" media, before we get to Fox News, etc.

<comment><USER51> > The "scandal" here is that a third-party app gathered personal information > that wasn't supposed to be used for targeting and the data ended up being > used for targeted political ads.

The scandal is that an organization impersonated a health care research entity and knowingly collected PII for use in political actions. Not only is this awful in itself, but it undermines public health by making people distrust legitimate data collection projects for beneficial health purposes. It's similar to when the CIA used a vaccination effort to locate Bin Laden, and now those aid personnel are routinely attacked and not trusted by locals which makes it more difficult to eradicate disease. If you are representing yourself as a health care entity and collecting PII for stated purposes of public health, you are likely bound by HIPAA, and I would like to see people go after this company for HIPAA violations as well as fraud.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> If we're going to go this route, Google should be hauled in first. You can easily choose not to play with Facebook. Google? Not so much.

<comment><USER53> I don't see how this argument makes sense. You can opt out of using Google's services just the same, if you so choose.

<comment><USER54> I have to disagree, and hopefully can make a better job at convincing you than the other comments. In terms of search "google" is a verb for a reason, but I actually do think you could use other search engines, true, I agree.

What worries me is Android however. Perhaps not in the US, but in a lot of other places around the world Android is the only operating system accessible to people and a large majority of the market, since iPhones are an impossible purchase. Phone manufacturers depend on Android like computer manufacturers once depended on Windows.

Apple is raking in the profits because it controls the vertical and sells expensive phones in premium markets, but in terms of raw market share things seem to be shaping towards a Mircosoft/Windows like situation. Android is close to passing the 75% mark [1] and judging by sales it probably will [2].

Maybe we're still not quite there, but it's shaping up in that direction. Facebook def has the lion's share on social networking, and messaging, but I can't help but believe that when it comes to Facebook it's mostly network effects keeping people in, since there are plenty of other (and sometimes better) messaging apps, lots of photo-sharing apps, and alternatives for event planning, getting your news, posting updates, etc.

Idk if "Google should be hauled in first", but it should def be hauled in too (alongside Amazon, but that's a whole other story).

[1]: [http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market- share/mobile/worldwide/#...](http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market- share/mobile/worldwide/#monthly-200903-201802)

[2]: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market- sha...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held- by-smartphone-operating-systems/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Sincere question: It appears that it's crystal clear to everyone where the distinction between fake and real news lies, or who should be allowed to post (mis)information (serve ads, if you prefer) on the interwebs, or how to identify the culprits exhaustively. I fail to see a way in practice to draw the boundary and identify/persecute the offenders. Imho virtually all ads spread misinformation (push someone's agenda) to my detriment. My only means of resistance is inherent in my duty (civic, but also self-serving -- to keep my sanity) to consciously make the effort to seek/filter through multiple viewpoints.

</comment><comment><USER56> Its simply astounding that the "use of personal data" is seemingly coming as a revelation to anyone. What's especially ridiculous is that arms of the government (like the FTC) are feigning indignation. The US government is - <USER3> far - the biggest collector and aggregator of personal data and information in the world. Both the government, corporations, "social media companies", and everyone else with access to data has been doing the same, and using this data to create models to influence people believe and support (or buy) whatever agenda or product that respective organization is pushing. Unfortunately this latest episode of faux outrage is very much like the faux outrage that has infected our cultural landscape for the last 18 months (due to Trump). Things that have been going on for decades are suddenly being attacked as evils unique to Trump. If the net result of this selective outrage led to substantive changes in our society, then perhaps it the outrage would be a "good" thing (despite its manufactured nature). Unfortunately, its very clear that all of these practices - the data mining, the troll farms, the bot- networks, the propaganda (both public and private) - will roll forward at full steam once Trump is consigned to the wastebin of history (where he belongs). Once the reigns of power are back into the hands of a trusted steward of global US military empire (rather than a deluded carnival barker) you should have absolutely no doubt that Comcast, and GE, and Disney will direct their minions in the media to focus your outrage somewhere else.

</comment><comment><USER57> Reminds me of this quote from the tabbacco industry in the early 90s;

"We don't smoke that shit. We just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and the stupid." \- R.J. Reynolds executive's reply when asked why he didn't smoke

</comment><comment><USER58> Ok. I know it's off-topic here, but...

Now what's good alternative to Facebook Messanger video calls? Signal doesn't support it - I read that it's in beta, but I can't enable it. Telegram doesn't seem to support it either. Skype is not an alternative.

Is Matrix/Riot good enough right now? For me it should work on Linux, Android and iOS for my family.

Now that I think about it, maybe I should setup some private WebRTC service for video calls. But it seems cumbersome for part of my family. However it probably would be easier for my parents and my in-laws.

EDIT: As Thriptic mentioned Signal indeed does support video calls. I failed to find the functionality, because I expected to see separate button for video call. One has to first start calling and then enable video.

<comment><USER51> Signal supports video calling on mobile at least. I've used it many times.

<comment><USER59> What is a socially acceptable way of getting people interested in Signal? I installed it and use it for messaging (Ive never been able to actually receive an mms with it). But I have not one contact on signal, so it's not doing much for me at this point. My daily work contacts don't seem like a prime target user base.

<comment><USER51> You're going to have a hard time convincing non-technical people / people who don't acutely care about privacy to use it in my experience. I generally try to shift people who are not in these demographics over to WhatsApp as that has a large user base and implements the signal protocol for end to end encryption. It's not a "safe" as signal but it's far better than something like messenger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I don't have much of an issue with targeted advertising or content by harvesting of data through what you make publicly available, as long as it is de-identified. It has plenty of applications for good as well. I hope that platforms are working on ways of taking these algorithms to edge nodes, making large master databases containing un-aggregated data that can be used to de- anonymise people less prevalent.

I'm more immediately concerned about blatantly fake news, clickbait, bots, sock-puppets and fake accounts posing as trusted parties in order to harvest trusted information and spread misinformation.

</comment><comment><USER61> Isn't Facebook valuation is implicitly based on how Facebook can [ab]use personal data?

</comment><comment><USER62> Ah, the other shoe drops. This is the reason for the blitz of anti-Facebook stories all at once... Legal authority to examine all that juicy personal data Facebook holds.

And if you think you are safe because you don't have an account, I have bad news for you.

<comment><USER63> The government doesn't have to resort to conspiracies to get your personal data from Facebook, if it wants it, it can get it. We live in the age of PRISM (in which Facebook is a participant,) secret orders, and NSA bulk surveillance. They could literally just build or hack an app that uses Facebook's API, apparently, or buy something from the black market, or in the narrow case _get a warrant._

Not to mention... I don't think this would actually give anyone "Legal authority to examine all that juicy personal data Facebook holds." I don't think "legal authority" actually works that way, but IANAL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> We see companies doing this all the time and I hope there's some sort of fix here, but I'm curious about the individual to individual implications. If we're serious about fixing privacy then things like sharing private messages, doxxing, etc should be addressed as well imho. Not sure what that would look like without curtailing free speech however.

</comment><comment><USER65> At a previous employer we had a high up executive from Facebook come out to give a presentation.

One of my main take away was that one of FBs big goals was to build a 'knowledge economy'. It struck me as a bit of an odd objective at the time, but I think I am now starting to understand what this means (and it's a little scary).

</comment><comment><USER66> I'm no fan of Facebook, and welcome this scrutiny. But what about all the people Facebook buys data from? Can we regulate them? What about Equifax?

All these corps do it without even the veneer of informed consent; we should make sure we criminalize the activity and not just crucify a well known practitioner and call it a day.

</comment><comment><USER67> Nothing will change with government regulations, those companies like Facebook, Google, etc are gold mines for the FBI, CIA, NSA and other 3 letter organizations, so in the interest of national security, they will continue to harvest the user data... Only major boycott can do some damage...

</comment><comment><USER68> Facebook deserves a good deal of criticism for this, but I can't be the only one who thinks this is just a continuation of the anti-startup, anti-social media dialog the major press agencies have been pushing ever since the Election?

</comment><comment><USER69> With these practices or lack of restriction on data pulling at Facebook, is it wrong to assume the board knew about this? Too many brilliant minds on their board, including pmarca, to not understand firms were able to do this.

</comment><comment><USER70> Better than a new law. I'm sure Congress is mulling one over, but surely they won't take a large sweeping, harm-the-good-more-than-the-bad, regulation- instead-of-enforcement approach.

<comment><USER71> I'd wage money that Feinstein will campaign on Facebook Regulation this year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> > If the FTC finds Facebook violated terms of the consent decree, it has the > power to fine the company thousands of dollars a day per violation.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but only a few thousand?

<comment><USER73> Yeah, this struck me too. It seems like the FTC's powers are far too light to deal with modern tech.

I'd really like to see something like the NTSB here, but for privacy/security issues. After an incident, the NTSB comes in, investigates everything, and produces a very detailed report as to what happened and what the industry should be doing differently. You can see their recent reports here: [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/Ac...](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AccidentReports.aspx)

It's very clear from Facebook's behavior since the elections that they can't be trusted to investigate and report on themselves. E.g., this article on how their execs thought it best not to say anything until forced by circumstances: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook- alex-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex- stamos.html)

<comment><USER74> European fines are much stiffer.

[https://www.gdpreu.org/compliance/fines-and- penalties/](https://www.gdpreu.org/compliance/fines-and-penalties/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> So about what number roughly (FB needs to pay) do we talk here?

<comment><USER76> According to this article [1], trillions in possible fines.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2018/03/18...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2018/03/18/facebook-may-have-violated-ftc-privacy-deal-say-former- federal-officials-triggering-risk-of-massive-fines/?utm_term=.a6662b465919)

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Not as bad as Equifax, yet... all this hoopla.

</comment><comment><USER78> In the long run this should not affect facebook much, opportunity to buy FB.

</comment><comment><USER79> The Executive Branch deflecting from the Executive Branch.

</comment><comment><USER80> As someone who wants to seen the societal view of facebook change, what's prevents a viral uninstall campaign from happening to facebook? #UninstallFacebook

</comment><comment><USER81> This is crazy! Peter Thiel spoke on March 15,2018 and said this about tech companies :"...If they do not take these issues seriously there is a risk they will be regulated.."

I have the video with the timestamp of the quote I mentioned, posted below.[1]

Ridiculously ironic on the timing of all this (evermore so that it is his darling Facebook) because I think this recent blunder by Facebook is a shot across the bow for other tech companies and even borderline bordering their "vessels" for search and seizure by the U.S government.

For those who do not know who he is.

> Thiel became Facebook's first outside investor when he acquired a 10.2% > stake for $500,000 in August 2004. He sold the majority of his shares in > Facebook for over $1 billion in 2012, but remains on the board of directors. > [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel)]

[1][Tech investor Peter Thiel speaks at the New York Economic Club]([https://youtu.be/sxWpvgTH9oI?t=33m52s](https://youtu.be/sxWpvgTH9oI?t=33m52s))

<comment><USER82> This is a particularly thorny issue for Thiel who said Gawker "ruined people's lives for no reason" after being outed as gay. Despite his involvement in Facebook, I think he's one of the few powerful people in tech who cares about people's privacy.

<comment><USER83> Does he though, or does he care about HIS privacy? I have no clue where he stands on the world at large based on his actions, just that he really didn't want to be outed (which is a reasonable request)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> That's why regulation always comes to be - no company can be trusted to do the right thing on its own.

<comment><USER85> Despite what Redditors like to say, the big banks have done a surprisingly good job at self regulating since the financial crisis. That said, these regulations will probably lax as people get more confident and comfortable with taking risks.

<comment><USER86> _> a surprisingly good job at self regulating since the financial crisis._

The financial crisis was less than ten years ago. That's like calling a drunk driver "responsible" for going a whole week sober since that time they crashed into a minivan and killed an entire family.

<comment><USER87> Do people who think banks and corporations are good at self-regulating not look at history? The same pattern has repeated for hundreds of years—it'd be embarrassing and horrible if a drunk driver didn't learn their lesson after a decade, but we haven't learned our lesson after at least a century.

<comment><USER42> Hundreds is a bit of a hyperbole here. We've only had modern corporate America for maybe the last 150 years. Pre-industrial companies didn't have as much power or clout as large behemoth enterprises do today.

<comment><USER87> We've only had the Internet for a few decades, but that doesn't mean we can't draw parallels between the dot-com bubble and what happened before, or that we shouldn't have learned from the past.

Consider the Amsterdam banking crisis of 1763, which some have compared to the 2008 financial crisis. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_banking_crisis_of_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_banking_crisis_of_1763)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> I remember reading a book on Facebook in 2010 or so. I remember distinctly quote from Mark Zuckerberg that "privacy is the concept from the past". Then, a couple years later I read he bought houses surrounding his house to ensure his own privacy.

Lost any respect I had for the guy in that moment. I really hope FTC will force FB to stop most of their unfair practices.

<comment><USER89> I'm not trying to make this political, but I've always found it ironic that people in Southwest cities who talk big about border walls not keeping people out very often live in communities or cities where every house being surrounded by a wall is the norm. And the richer they are, the taller and more elaborate the walls get.

Again, this isn't about politics. It's about irony and how rich people in California often seem to say one thing and do another.

<comment><USER90> There's a huge difference between having a wall around your home so your neighbors/peeping toms can't look at you and having a wall on the border to keep immigrants out.

These things aren't even comparable, I have no idea where you think the irony lies.

<comment><USER91> These things are very similar. In one case, your defend your personal property (a house), in another, you defend your collective property (a country). In both cases, you rightly feel that you have the privilege of using that property that you want to be in control of, personally or collectively.

<comment><USER90> I think you completely misunderstand why people build fences or walls around their homes.

House wall: \- keep pesky neighborhood kids from running through it and ruining your grass \- keep your neighbors from being able to see you while youre swimming in your pool

Border wall: \- attempt to keep Mexicans from immigrating into the country illegally

I fail to see how these use cases are at all similar. Please, if I missed a use case for a house or if your home is constantly being attacked by barbarians let me know, but I don't think anybody in California builds a wall to "defend" themselves.

<comment><USER92> > I fail to see how these use cases are at all similar.

That's because you don't view Mexicans as pesky neighbors trampling all over your country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> I would like them to review my numerous fake profile reports to Facebook, which they ignored... it was probably in the 100s during this last election. They failed to act and I am pretty sure that they promote, allow and encourage the use of bots and fake accounts on their social network as it helps inflate their user count.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the most widely used contact management solution? - <AUTHOR>

Hello,<p>My application needs an address book to operate and I need to build some import tools. I'd like to target the most popular tool for storing contacts info for small businesses, at least in the first release. Should I just target Outlook CSV?
What about LDAP and Active Directory ? Thanks! <comment><USER2> Depending on your requirements, outsourcing the first version might be the best option. Check out <http://www.plaxo.com/api/widget>

</comment><comment><USER3> Outlook works for businesses that have implemented AD and require an internal address book, accessible by all.

MS Access databases or Excel spreadsheets for small businesses that tend not to have AD set up.

Go for CSV to start with.

</comment><comment><USER4> When I centralized my contact database about a year ago, I pretty much had no viable choice besides Outlook. Most applications have an "export to Outlook" feature and it's at least pretty decent at contact management.

</comment><comment><USER5> Import from CSV, most contact management tools have an "export to CSV" option.

<comment><USER6> I second that, plus importing with CSV is incredibly easy for most applications.

Just make sure you have matching fields, for example a first, middle and last name instead of just first/last so it plays well with Outlook.</comment></comment>


How Google Drive Terms compare to Dropbox and Skydrive - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/#!/jmacdonald/status/195184740209401856 <comment><USER2> Am I reading this right that if, for example, you're a professional photographer, and you backup your photos on Google Drive, they then have a license to print and distribute your photos without your permission (beyond this EULA)?</comment>


Show HN: Explore Open Source Code Online (early prototype) - <AUTHOR> http://www.codemaps.org/e/Lucene

<comment><AUTHOR> We have done a minor pivot to launch a really cool service. Would love to hear what you guys think of it.

Would you like to see it be easier to use, any particular features, more projects online, or supporting more languages (currently only Java)?

</comment><comment><USER2> Sorry guys, due to a stupid bug some of you might have faced really long wait times while trying to explore a diagram. I apologize for that. The issue has been resolved and exploration should work much better now.</comment>


Macroframeworks vs. Microframeworks - <AUTHOR> https://sdegutis.com/blog/2018-08-28-macroframeworks-vs-microframeworks <comment><USER2> The actual problem behind all that is that many people think "web development" equals "using a framework".

<comment><AUTHOR> It comes down to using a framework or using libraries, but ultimately they both have the same goal: do a lot of the work for you so you can focus on code specific to your business domain.</comment></comment>


How to prevent medical records from being hacked - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-prevent-medical-records-from-being-hacked-11592605721 <comment><AUTHOR> [https://archive.vn/bSXq7](https://archive.vn/bSXq7)</comment>


Proof-of-Satoshi fails Proof-of-Proof - <AUTHOR> http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-May/029323.html <comment><USER2> To save everyone from the oozing condescension of this guy's rant I'll boil down his thesis: Just because someone can spend Satoshi's bitcoin doesn't PROVE that they're Satoshi. Given by the many common sense reasons he listed with the know-it-all fervor of an 8th grade WoW player (someone could have stole it or the original team passed it around among themselves etc). Sure it doesn't prove anything ABSOLUTELY if Craig Write actually moved a bitcoin, but it certainly would help his case.

<comment><AUTHOR> On the other hand... the author is a respected financial cryptographer. He invented Riccardian contracts, is a proponent of triple-entry accounting, has authored many papers and provided expert testimony to the US senate finance subcommittee. 45 leading banks have joined the R3 consortium and he is R3's blockchain architect.

<comment><USER3> One might object that we don't _know_ the author is a respected financial cryptographer- we see merely that he's posting with a respected cryptographer's account, which proves nothing. : )

Regardless of his larger accomplishments, this particular post qualifies as a rant by my measure- phrases like "ripping the wool off sheep's backs" and "sate your pavlovian hunger" don't make for calm and measured discourse. As for substance, clearly he's angry that people are responding so scathingly to Wright's claim, but A) this is the internet, that's how it behaves, and B) we are all quite aware that cryptographic proofs aren't everything and that Satoshi might have lost his keys, but Wright has offered us many good reasons to doubt his sincerity. Past actions (fake degrees, tax shenanigans, etc) aside, he came out with the assertion that he was Satoshi _and could prove it._ He posted a fake demonstration of signing a message with Satoshi's key, and then made noise about being about to spend coins from the genesis block before backing out altogether. It just _looks bad._ If he had come out and said "I'm Satoshi Nakamoto, but I don't have the keys to prove it", well... people wouldn't necessarily believe him, but it would have remained a possibility in people's minds. This whole story has functioned as quite effective _human_ proof that Wright is a con-artist.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A Creative Lexicon for Writers, Poets, and Branding - <AUTHOR> http://rio-ai.com/go/creative-inspiration.htm <comment><AUTHOR> If you have ever looked up a word in a rhyming dictionary for inspiration, you probably have wondered if there was a better way. Gargantuan Orangutan provides a resource of over a hundred thousand common words interlinked to each other by common sounds. Additionally rhymes can be found for varying strengths, alliteration, and cross-linking to common web resources like Wikipedia, Google Images, etc.</comment>


Ask YC: Best book to learns statistics? - <AUTHOR> The limiting reagent in a few projects I'm working on (or would like to work on) seems to be my knowledge of statistics/probability.
Ideally, I'd like something along the lines of Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds that could teach me from the ground up.
I have a fairly strong math background in general, but I've just never learned much stats/probability beyond the basics.
I'd appreciate any suggestions - there just seems to be so much cruft out there that teaches just enough to regurgitate for exams. I'm all for abstraction, but I rather dislike fundamental theorems being presented fully formed with no explanation/justification. <comment><USER2> I agree with Feller as the classical book on probability; it is beautifully written and full of insight and deserves to be read over and over again.

For theoretical statistics, justifying why you'd use one method versus another, the graduate level classic is Cassela and Berger, Statistical Inference. This teaches you to design your own tests and compare Bayesian vs. frequentist methods and interpret the paradoxes - and is full of beautiful explanations - but it's not a bag of tricks.

Applied statistics book tend to be more specialized. There's plenty of cookbooks with statements like "and then you should do this regression and compare the p-value to 5%," but that's not what you want. Any of several books with titles like Applied Regression Analysis or Multivariate Statistical Analysis will be at a more substantial level. After that there are specialist topics - experiment design, survival analysis, heavy tailed distributions, robust statistics, multi-level modeling, asymptotics. Statisticians get involved in a lot of areas, from quality control in manufacturing to clinical trial design to economic forecasting to genetics, so there's a lot of overlap with other fields in the academic literature.

Econometric Analysis by Greene is the economists' favorite stats book, and is very self-contained, covering everything from computational tricks for Monte Carlo simulations top some very modern multivariate methods.

As a computer scientist/hacker, your natural starting point is Bishop. Pattern recognition and Machine Learning or perhaps <http://www.ai.mit.edu/courses/6.867-f03/lectures.html>

I've heard machine learning defined as the application of statistical methods to engineering; people with statistics degrees grumble that CS/machine learning types learn to do what's computationally feasible and not properly justify their methods, doing the sort of analysis you'd see in Casella and Berger.

In terms of software, a lot of statistical computing in the open source world now gets done on R platform. For modern computationally intensive methods like MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) the program BUGS/WinBUGS is a standard.

Also, <http://videolectures.net/> has a whole lot of lectures (mostly from the Machine Learning perspective), starting with intro to probability and going right up to modern research.

</comment><comment><USER3> The all time best "tutorial" style book for learning introductory statistics is "Fundamentals of Applied Probability Theory" by Alvin Drake. Unfortunately it is out of print and used copies are hard to come by. It looks like you can get PDFs from MIT:

[http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and- Compute...](http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer- Science/6-041Spring-2006/RelatedResources/)

I have a math degree but didn't study any statistics. I used this book to teach myself. There may be more comprehensive books but this one is the best for learning the basics on your own.

</comment><comment><USER4> I would highly recommend _Biostatistical Analysis_ , 4th Edition by Jerrold H. Zar ([http://www.amazon.com/Biostatistical-Analysis-4th-Jerrold- Za...](http://www.amazon.com/Biostatistical-Analysis-4th-Jerrold- Zar/dp/013081542X)). Don't let title mislead you. This book does does an excellent job presenting the background, development and fundamentals of a wide variety of statistical methods. The treatment is very thorough; if you can work through the entire book, you would certainly possess a good understanding of the topic. What I appreciate most is the comprehensive treatment of the limits of each method/test, allowing you to apply them (or not) with confidence.

Another classic is _The Use and Abuse of Statistics_ by W.J. Reichmann. The treatment is not nearly as formal, but it is still a worthwhile read.

</comment><comment><USER5> While they seem to be down at the moment (they were working this morning), Andrew Moore's introductory probability lectures are really good if you're involved in any kind of machine learning.

<http://www.autonlab.org/tutorials/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Zed offers some classic recommendations at the end of his post "Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them All":

<http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/programmer_stats.html>

</comment><comment><USER7> The all time classic at the level your looking for is William Feller's two volume set "Introduction to probability theory and its applications"- if you can find a copy. A good university library should have a copy. On wikipedia, it claims that Persi Diaconis (of the seven shuffles theorem fame) was motivated to finish high school after dropping out so that he could understand the contents of this book. 'nuff said.

Karatzas and Shreve "Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus" is also a popular book among quants.

</comment><comment><USER8> For probability, "Introduction to Probability" (<http://www.athenasc.com/probbook.html>) is the best I've come across. I am not sure if this might be a bit basic for you, since you say you have a strong background in math, but do take a look at the TOC.

I still haven't come across an equivalent book on statistics. If anyone knows a good book, I'd be very grateful if they'd post the details

</comment><comment><USER9> I strongly recommend "All of Statistics", by Larry Wasserman. It lives up to its title pretty well. It is very _concise_ in its explanations of various topics. I like this, but you might want a traditional book if some topic gives you trouble.

<http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~larry/all-of-statistics/index.html>

Feller is a lot of fun, but a very strange suggestion for someone who apparently just wants to learn some statistics and get to work. Feller is for, like, reading by the fireplace with a glass of wine.

</comment><comment><USER10> For statistics, maybe you can start from:

<http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html>

</comment><comment><USER11> [http://www.amazon.com/Probability-its-engineering-uses- Thorn...](http://www.amazon.com/Probability-its-engineering-uses- Thornton/dp/B00085BFU6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212029439&sr=1-2)

is an excellent introduction to the subject

</comment><comment><USER12> perhaps not exactly what you are looking for but: nassim nicholas taleb: [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly- Improbable/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly- Improbable/dp/1400063515) [http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden- Chance-Market...](http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance- Markets/dp/0812975219/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211971878&sr=1-2)

<comment><USER13> Don't know why this is getting downvoted -- I read and enjoyed this books a lot recently. I'm finding this to be a great thread for resources to satisfy the curiosity about probability and statistics that they left me with.

<comment><USER14> I don't doubt they're enjoyable books, but they're more about the social implications of statistics. They aren't good books to teach you statistics, which was the topic of this thread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> <http://www.isical.ac.in/academicprogramme.php>

</comment><comment><USER16> I rather enjoyed "The Cartoon Guide to Statistics", but it might not be quite what you're looking for.

</comment><comment><USER17> intro stats is an excellent way to learn from the ground up [http://www.amazon.com/Intro-Stats-DeVeaux-Velleman- Bock/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Intro-Stats-DeVeaux-Velleman- Bock/dp/0321286715)

</comment><comment><USER18> Check out books by Athanasios Papoulis.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasios_Papoulis>

[http://books.google.co.in/books?as_auth=Athanaszaios+Papouli...](http://books.google.co.in/books?as_auth=Athanaszaios+Papoulis&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author- navigational&hl=en)</comment>


In 2017, the feds said Tesla Autopilot cut crashes 40%–that was bogus - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/02/in-2017-the-feds-said-tesla-autopilot-cut-crashes-40-that-was-bogus/ <comment><USER2> Interesting part from the article:

"To compute a crash rate, you take the number of crashes and divide it by the number of miles traveled. NHTSA did this calculation twice—once for miles traveled before the Autosteer upgrade, and again for miles traveled afterward. NHTSA found that crashes were more common before Autosteer, and the rate dropped by 40 percent once the technology was activated.

In a calculation like this, it's important for the numerator and denominator to be drawn from the same set of data points. If the miles from a particular car aren't in the denominator, then crashes for that same car can't be in the numerator—otherwise the results are meaningless.

Yet according to QCS, that's exactly what NHTSA did. Tesla provided NHTSA with data on 43,781 vehicles, but 29,051 of these vehicles were missing data fields necessary to calculate how many miles these vehicles drove prior to the activation of Autosteer. NHTSA handled this by counting these cars as driving zero pre-Autosteer miles. Yet NHTSA counted these same vehicles as having 18 pre-Autosteer crashes—more than 20 percent of the 86 total pre-Autosteer crashes in the data set. The result was to significantly overstate Tesla's pre-Autosteer crash rate."

</comment><comment><USER3> _The majority of the vehicles in the Tesla data set suffered from missing data or other problems that made it impossible to say whether the activation of Autosteer increased or decreased the crash rate. But when QCS focused on 5,714 vehicles whose data didn 't suffer from these problems, it found that the activation of Autosteer actually increased crash rates by 59 percent._

Sounds about right. Some jackass was showing off Autopilot last week in the parking garage, and promptly crashed into a parked car.

</comment><comment><USER4> Pretty much every statement that Elon Musk has made about Autopilot is either widely exaggerated, misleading, or a lie.

I don't understand why? Teslas are great cars, there's nothing else that comes close in a lot of categories (longest range electric car, biggest charging network, fastest acceleration, best user interface, ...).

These cars are full of superlatives, and yet they still don't think it's enough, and they make ridiculous exaggerations... I just don't get it.

<comment><USER5> Saying that Tesla has best user interface seems to be a bit too strong... Touchscreen controls pretty much suck compared to just about any other alternatives.

<comment><USER6> You obviously don't own one. Would you still recommend a BlackBerry over an Android/iPhone?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> FWIW, the HN thread from 2 years ago, "NHTSA's full investigation into Tesla's Autopilot shows 40% crash rate reduction", with 800+ upvotes:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13437905](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13437905)

<comment><USER8> The fanboyism is insane here. Its a product you cant even repair without breaking their eula, and people defend them as a net good. Its breathtaking.

<comment><USER9> They're probably investing in TSLA.</comment></comment></comment>


Toyota Plug In Hybrids Coming Late This Year  - <AUTHOR> http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/toyota-plug-in-hybrid-coming-late-this-year/?hp

<comment><USER2> Slightly misleading...they're not going to be available to consumers until late 2010 at the earliest.</comment>